“VACANT SEATS”

Otago Daily Times, Issue 22911, 19 June 1936, Page 20

“VACANT SEATS”

RAETIHI BOROUGH COUNCIL DISQUALIFICATIONS INVALID A curious position lias arisen at Raetihi (the correspondent of the Auckland Star writes), where there are 10 councillors filling nine seats on the Borough Council. Some time ago Mr A. Webb, of Raetihi, received notice of h>* disqualification as a councillor owing to his having committed a breach of the Municipal Corporations Act < by accepting work from the council, which together with his deposit exceeded £lO. Another councillor, Mr Sandford, also received notification of his disqualification owing to a similar alleged breach of the Act. , Just prior to the council’s monthly meeting Mr Fretchling, the town clerk, who received his instructions from the Audit Department, obtained advice from the Crown Law Office, which ruled that both councillors were at fault. Not satisfied with this ruling one ot the disqualified councillors, Mr Sandford, proceeded to Wellington, where he obtained an interview with Mr J. O Shea, city solicitor, when the full facts were placed before him. Mr O’Shea said the disqualifications were wrong and could not be upheld. ■ .. ~ When Mr Sandford was making m« representations an election was being held at Raetihi to fill the “vacancy cm the council in respect of Mr Webbs disqualification. , ~ . Immediate steps were taken to obtain interviews with the responsible Minister and the Minister of Internal Affairs, the Minister of Lands, and'the member for the district, together with the Attorney-general, conferred on the matter. The. Attorney-general considered it ridiculous to interpret the Act as it had been interpreted, and Mr Sandford received an assurance from the Ministers that ho was justified in taking his seat as a councillor, and that arrangements would be made to have the clause in the Act clarified, 'also that it would be pushed through in the “Washing-up’ Bill. Ho was told that it was perfectly, clear that ns the Act stood the disqualified councillors had been wrongfully penalised. Any alteration to the Act would be made retrospective to the 1934 Act. At the monthly meeting of the Raetini Borough Council Mr Saiidford’s right to sit on the council was challenged by the town clerk, who advised him that he was liable to a penalty of £SO. Mr Sandford then rose and told the council that he intended to act on the council ev’en in the face of the toTvn clerk’s warning, and went on to explain to that body the result of the representations he had made to the Ministers m Wellington. As neither Mr Sandford nor Air Webb has proffered his resignation, it in now considered that the r cc ®” fc by-clectioii was invalid, and should Mr Webb desire to upset it an application to a magistrate will be required. It i« authoritatively stated that Mr ” ebb intends tendering his resignation, and ■this will have the effect of partially casing what is at present a very complicated position.